Liberals rule the roost in Bollywood . And their version of liberalism nowadays consists of portraying the very forces that defend the Indian state and on whom the state depends for survival ( like the armed forces for instance ) as villains . In other countries such a portrayal of the forces that defend the nation as villains would have been instantly clamped down upon . For if such a portrayal is done repeatedly , then the morale of the armed forces would go down ; they would feel let down by their own people and would not be enthusiastic about defending the country anymore . But in India anything goes....India is a sab chalta hai country where there is no respect for the armed forces and any expression of nationalism is frowned upon by the intellectual classes . An atmosphere of vegetarianism has made Indians weak and effeminate and ready to get themselves trampled upon by anyone who has the chutzpah to do so . The movie 'Haider' is the product of such an environment . People who are in open rebellion against India in Kashmir are openly shown as heroes in the film . People who are defending the interests of the Indian state ( like Kashmiris who are on India's side ) are shown as villains . People who are against Indian rule in Kashmir fight 'heroically' against all the odds ; they are eulogized as martyrs dying for a just cause . But people who defend India die dog's deaths . ....And the amazing fact is that the censors have passed the film with several cuts ; but they have not had the guts to ban the film entirely . How could they ?? If they banned the whole movie , then the entire liberal/secular lobby would be up in arms ; their version of freedom consists of allowing anti national forces to voice their dissent and clamp down upon any attempt by any Indian to act tough . And the even more amazing fact is that there is not a murmur of protest from the common man . Vegetarianism and the pacifism that goes with it have struck such deep roots in our society that it has drained our vitals of any reserves of manliness ; we allow the so called 'liberals' to take charge of our pathetic lives.... There are so many anti national moments in the film that I won't bother to enumerate them . Searching on the internet for these anti national moments in the film yielded results ; I found what I was searching for on 'Deshgujarat' website . The following is a copy/paste from 'Deshgujarat' website--- Copy/paste--- Indeed as the site says , the Indian army has been shown killing innocent Kashmiris and throwing their bodies in rivers . Generally it has been shown as not respectful of human rights and responsible for thousands of missing persons ( presumably all innocent but killed ) in the film . Indian rule is shown as a tyranny that all Kashmiris want to escape from . The director is most probably a 'bleeding heart liberal' whose heart bleeds for those Kashmiris who are subject to regular checks at checkpoints by the Indian army . But the bleeding stops there....the director has no problems with those Kashmiris who resort to terrorism and violence against the state . One would be forgiven if one started believing that the movie was funded by Pakistan.... The story begins with a doctor surreptitiously taking a kashmiri terrorist who has been wounded into his house for treatment instead of handing him over to the army . His sympathies are obviously with the terrorists . But the army gets wind of this and the doctor is arrested while the terrorist is killed by the army by blowing up the doctor's house . Now why would the army act differently ?? The doctor is harboring a terrorist after all . But no , later the director shows the person who informed the army as the villain . Or rather , it is the villain of the film who informed the army . So the director of the film wants to say that the act of informing the army about a terrorist is an act of villainy which only the villain of the film can do !! Does the director want to say that terrorists ought to be saved and those who inform about people harboring terrorists are bad people ?? Certainly I feel so.... The doctor's son Haider ( played by Shahid Kapoor ) comes back to see his mother openly cavorting with his uncle---and clearly romancing the uncle . Haider is filled with rage and hate . He makes his sympathies clear by calling the town of Anantnag as 'Islamabad' , which is the name given to it by Kashmiri terrorists . Of course , Islamabad is also the capital of Pakistan---so we are given a not to subtle hint of where his real sympathies lie.... The local Kashmiri police officer's daughter ( played by Shraddha Kapoor ) is in love with Haider , but this is opposed by he family who are sided with India . Is it for this perfidy ( of siding with India ) that the family has to die in the end in an orgy of violence ?? ---presumably that is what the director feels should happen to those Kashmiris who side with India in the Kashmir conflict . A man affiliated with Pakistan backed terrorists ( played by Irfan Khan ) contacts Haider and informs him about his father and about the fact that father wants him to take revenge on his uncle ( played superbly by the redoubtable Kay Kay Menon ) who has been romancing his wife (Haider's mother) behind his back . And a gun is given to him to take revenge.... The uncle has a different story to tell---of Pakistan backed terrorists hatching a plan to make Haider angry and against India . Haider is in the midst of a dilemma as to whom to believe , but his eyes seem maddened by hate for his uncle . And he genuinely becomes a psycho for a while . This part ( of going mad ) is the part where Shahid has acted brilliantly and the film is at it's best . So who's version of the story is true ?? What happened to Haider's father ?? What is the role of Haider's mother ( played by Tabu ) in all this ?? Watch the movie for the answers if you want to go against my advice... As the movie moves towards the the climax , all those who sided with India are killed in brutal fashion . Again I have to ask---Is that what the director feels should happen to those who take India's side ?? The director does have solution for Kashmir's demand for Azadi----he feels it should be achieved with gandhian methods ( just like India achieved it from Britain ) rather than violence , for violence and revenge will lead only to more revenge and more killing.... Verdict---The movie is more like an art movie rather than commercial . Not entertaining . But that is not reason why I asking you not to watch it . One film won't make much difference , but if more films like this are made then the morale of our armed forces will go down---they will feel backstabbed by the very people they are supposed to defend . If those people themselves support films which show Indian army in a bad light , then why should armed forces defend their lives ?? And if we flock to the theaters to watch such films and help the movie makers make more money then the movie makers will be tempted to make more such films . Don't go to see ' what is anti national in the film' . Not recommended .